Pro-Life Outnumber Pro-Choice

As human development science progresses, the nation is learning more about what a fetus is capable of throughout the gestation process.  As a result, political opinions on the Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice debate are reflecting new, fundamental understandings about growing fetuses and what value they may have.  We are forced to confront decisions about the human soul which were more easily swept under the rug 30 years ago. Perhaps, we are finally realizing that fetuses are more than "parasites" growing in-utero? (Even if we collectively don't believe in the soul, surely they aren't just parasites are they!) 

Feminists in the United States turned pregnancy into a women's rights issue in the1920's (clearly it is linked to those rights but is it an exclusively female issue?).  However, after years of outrageous claims by hardline feminists (e.g. growing infants are no different than cancerous tumors) their has been a backlash of public opinion.  Scientific knowledge has advanced a long way since 1920 and these incredible claims no longer carry weight with an educated public.  Yet, still, some of these arguments persist.  (Lets not forget the group of individuals recently advocating for post-birth abortion, i.e. infanticide, because, in their view, there is no difference between a fetus and a newly born child.) TCD anticipates that over time, these positions will be very faux pas in the Pro-Choice movement because they are not received well by the public at large, though, it seems, many Pro-Choicers still firmly believe that fetuses aren't "human."

{More After The Jump}

Progressive Theory Of The Day: After-Birth Abortion

Today, smarty-smart academic types are advancing progressive ideas throughout the world. Progress is generally good. I like progress. So progressivism is good right? Well, yes, until you read something like this and begin to think about what progress means in the real world.

Apparently, some scholars -- an actual professor and his prior associates at one of the world's more prestigious universities -- are saying that killing a newly born infant is not immoral. To them, killing a fetus in utero is no different than killing a newly born infant because neither has cognizable value or self-worth... or something to that extent. The idea is so far "advanced" and "progressed" that I have trouble making sense of it. It seems that this progress is light years ahead of anything moderates could possibly comprehend. Being the complete idiot that I am, I'm not sure how this is different from what the Barbarians did hundreds of years ago when a child was born "defective" but perhaps after four (4) more years of college education I will understand the subtle nuances.

Conservative types often argue that killing an infant is no different than killing a fetus. The point being, for conservative-types, that both acts are probably immoral because who would kill a newborn baby? You'd have to be some kind of sociopath to do something like that, right? However, our societal progressors say "Nay!" and actually adopt the same opinion but conclude otherwise. In their paper they argue that neither the new born infant nor the in-utero fetus have moral existence, self-worth or value. Interesting.

[The "scholars"] did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practiced.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Despite the obvious knee-jerk reaction to their conclusions, you have to at least compliment them for being academically honest by admitting that there is no significant difference between a moments-old-fetus and one that is in-utero. So "after-birth abortion" should became a new politically trendy word. Maybe "antenatal infanticide" will join the discussion in rebuttal.